Mitt ... again?

[JackinSea]

There's this theory floating around that he's all over the news these days because he's thinking third time's the charm for being prez?

Any thoughts?

 

[opinterph]

I've heard the same thing. On the surface it seems implausible, but who knows?

 

[nycguydowntown]

guys born with silver spoons up their butts think they are special --no matter what their limitations--because they have always been told they are wonderful (like W) so who knows? in the windmills of his mind he may think this is his destiny.

 

[Kulindahr]

Well, it would save money -- there are probably still a lot of old campaign stuff around.

 

[Alucard11]

There's this theory floating around that he's all over the news these days because he's thinking third time's the charm for being prez?

Any thoughts?

I live in a very liberal area and see the sign for his Netflix doc. everywhere.

The liberal media is very, very busy destroying the Republican candidates for 2016 before the primary, so Mitt might be the last man standing.

Any non-Demorcat running for election has to be someone who can survive the media onslaught AND the toxic brand that is the GOP.

It could very well be that Romney is that man, but how will he stack up against the likes of Elizabeth Warren? She is much more knowledgable than Obama in talking about the economy, his weakness in the debates with Romney. So now he is going to be matched up against someone who can match his strengths? Plus she is going to be very likable and it seems like she is at least partially respected by some Republicans. She is more in line to steal votes from Romney than he is from her.

Then there is H. Clinton. She has more negatives than Warren but there are independent and Democrat voters who are going to feel it is her time.

I think Clinton will win if she doesn't get outflanked in the primary again. Maybe it will be Clinton-Warren 2016? I don't think you need a mixed sex ticket to win in 2016.

 

[HenryReardon]

There's this theory floating around that he's all over the news these days because he's thinking third time's the charm for being prez?

Any thoughts?

That rumor is total nonsense. The election was his to lose the last time, and by his attitude and actions, he made it clear that his heart really wasn't in it.

 

[TX-Beau]

...The liberal media is very, very busy destroying the Republican candidates for 2016 before the primary, so Mitt might be the last man standing...

…thump, thump, rumble, thump thump, rumble…

ATTACK OF THE LIBERAL MEDIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


ARGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!

RUNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN Alucard11!!!!!! IT’S HEADED FOR MASSACHUSETS!!!!!!


(Shedding a little tear, it’s been so long)

- - - Updated - - -

That rumor is total nonsense. The election was his to lose the last time, and by his attitude and actions, he made it clear that his heart really wasn't in it.

HENRY!! How the hell are ya? Yes the election was his to lose and damn, did he lose it!

 

[Kulindahr]

I think Clinton will win if she doesn't get outflanked in the primary again. Maybe it will be Clinton-Warren 2016? I don't think you need a mixed sex ticket to win in 2016.

I know Democrats here who would just stay home if it was Clinton-Warren. They may be ready for a woman, but two on the ticket would be too much.

 

[Alucard11]

I know Democrats here who would just stay home if it was Clinton-Warren. They may be ready for a woman, but two on the ticket would be too much.

Why? Unless they foresee something I don't.

 

[darden]

the only reason Mitt won the primaries in 2012 is because, knowing Obama was so likely to win regardless, most of the top tier GOP candidates decided not to run. that left him as a second tier candidate amidst a bunch of clowns.

that's unlikely to happen in 2016 and I'm sure the Romneys know it. I don't really see a scenario in which he runs again, and I absolutely don't see a scenario in which he wins the primaries again.

you can run in the primaries as often as you want, but once you make it to the general election and lose, that's it for you.

 

[Alnitak]

Plenty of men have run for president more than twice. But I think America is ready for a woman.

 

[darden]

Plenty of men have run for president more than twice.

exactly 4 men who made it to the general election and lost ran again, only one of whom ever won.

Charles Pinckney (lost in 1804 and 1808)
Grover Cleveland (lost reelection in 1888, won in 1892)
William Jennings Bryan (lost in 1896 and 1900)
Thomas E. Dewey (lost in 1944 and 1948)

it's not unprecedented, but it's certainly rare and it's never happened in modern politics. voters seem content to allow and encourage candidates to run in the primaries as often as they want, but once they make it into the final round, that's generally their one and only shot if they lose.

 

[brokegayguy]

liberal media

No such thing.

That rumor is total nonsense. The election was his to lose the last time, and by his attitude and actions, he made it clear that his heart really wasn't in it.

No, his heart was totally into it. Very few, if any candidates have put more time and resources into running for President than he has over the last bunch of years. It's his head that wasn't into it, he's got it jammed 20 miles up his ass.

 

[Alnitak]

exactly 4 men who made it to the general election and lost ran again, only one of whom ever won.

Charles Pinckney (lost in 1804 and 1808)
Grover Cleveland (lost reelection in 1888, won in 1892)
William Jennings Bryan (lost in 1896 and 1900)
Thomas E. Dewey (lost in 1944 and 1948)

it's not unprecedented, but it's certainly rare and it's never happened in modern politics. voters seem content to allow and encourage candidates to run in the primaries as often as they want, but once they make it into the final round, that's generally their one and only shot if they lose.

Well for 67 he sure looks great.

 

[rareboy]

I'm loving this.

Maybe he'll pick Palin as his running mate this time around.

 

[JackinSea]

you can run in the primaries as often as you want, but once you make it to the general election and lose, that's it for you.

You mean like Richard Nixon?


I could see his Russia comment being seized on as his foreign policy brilliance, and his loss will be blamed on the buzzsaw of Obama's "charisma" by Republicans who don't outright hate Mitt.

 

[darden]

You mean like Richard Nixon?


I could see his Russia comment being seized on as his foreign policy brilliance, and his loss will be blamed on the buzzsaw of Obama's "charisma" by Republicans who don't outright hate Mitt.

ack, idk how I left Nixon off my list. he's one of my favorite Presidents... so 5 2-time candidates out of the 57 or so elections we've had, only two of whom ever won (one a former President and the other a former Vice President)

if the election was held today, I'm sure Mitt would make a credible case for foreign policy brilliance. in 2 years, who knows. if he's running against top tier Republican candidates instead of clowns like Herman Cain and Michelle Bachman, though, I don't see how he makes it through the primaries even if he does run (which he doesn't seem to be giving any indication of doing regardless)

 

[frankfrank]

Mitt Romney, bring it on.

 

[Kulindahr]

Why? Unless they foresee something I don't.

Because it would be two women.

 

[Kulindahr]

No such thing.

Yes, there is -- just not as much as the Limbaugh and Beck cohort want people to believe.

What's more noteworthy, though, is that the reporting is far less liberal than the beliefs of the people doing it. That sort of says that however liberal they may be, they are more trustworthy than those on the right, who deliberately tweak everything toward their own views rather than toward objectivity.